Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

Taking the BRICS Seriously

What the BRICS countries have in common is their exclusion from the places they believe they deserve in the current world order. This month's first-ever BRICS parliamentary forum was just the latest in an expanding array of institutions and formal structures that the group has launched with the aim of changing that.

BEIJING – Sailing down the Moscow River on a cool evening earlier this month, I found myself in intense conversation with the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Chinese National People’s Congress (NPC). Meanwhile, South African and Brazilian parliamentarians were swaying to Russian music and a guide pointed out the sights. The first parliamentary forum of the BRICS countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – had come to a convivial conclusion.

Before the meeting opened, many wondered whether the five parliaments could possibly find common ground. What on earth could India’s fractious and rumbustious Lok Sabha, with its impassioned debates and disruptions, have in common with China’s decorous NPC, a rigorously controlled echo chamber for Communist Party decisions? Membership in the new BRICS grouping, many believed, did not provide a strong enough basis for cooperation.

Such skepticism has been leveled at the BRICS grouping itself from its inception, with some dismissing it as the only international organization invented by an investment bank. Specifically, the term BRIC was coined more than a decade ago by then-Goldman Sachs analyst Jim O’Neill, who did not initially count South Africa among the ranks of the major emerging economies.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.

Shashi Tharoor, a former UN under-secretary-general and former Indian Minister of State for Human Resource Development and Minister of State for External Affairs, is currently an MP for the Indian National Congress and Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs. He is the author of Pax Indica: India and the World of the 21st Century.

345 years of Economic growth came to an end in 1945 when two meltdowns changed the narrative to include France n Germany alongside The Anglosphere. The 1945 paradigm shift has prolonged it's demise - it actually ended within 25 years in 1971 when Bretton Woods collapsed. China has produced an Economic game changer from the day Nixon met Mao in 1972. BRICS clearly is to China what the European Union was to France n Germany n Italy. Whether the Euro will be joined by Renminbi-Rouble-Rupee in a replay of France n Germany n Italy is really up to The Anglosphere. Confrontational approaches have defined past transitions. BRICS capacity for confrontation can take the World back to 1600 rather than merely 1945 or 1971. Economics will be central to this predicament. For the Mandarins prefer victory without bullets. Religion Race Region perhaps are elements that have never ever disappeared from the World's Chemistry - The Club that shapes the narrative for tomorrow will be unlike the others before. BRICS promises can only materialize if they make their Rules of attraction as endearing as The Anglosphere or at least as potent as The Eurosphere. Only when it's economics unravel will the world gravitate towards the Rise of the Renminbi-Rouble-Rupee. The quest for PETROEURO was the red line of 1971. The possibility of PETRORENMINBI remains a highly combustible combination, perhaps a red line that may not deter the Red Squares in 2015 - BRICS diplomacy will be tested before liftoff.

Sure. Also as you said the position at the high table would bear some meaning only if there is active participation in the global scenario, not always abstaining or being a "soft power". Its time to have a stand(India should have done something to reach out to the stranded Rohingya muslims).

The BRICS countries certainly have some things in common. What comes to mind are: A high degree of government interference in the economy (state capitalism) leading to poor allocation of resources; Protectionist tendencies when it comes to trade; and not least a very near crippling amounts of corruption. These are already three very good reasons why the world would likely be worse off if the BRICS would carry more weight in the current world order than they already do.

In 2001 Goldman Sachs economist Jim O'Neill coined the acronym BRIC - Brazil, Russia, India and China - in a research paper entitled "The World needs better economic BRICs". Putin "liked the term from the start, and suggested in 2006 that the four countries should meet regularly", even though they had little in common. Nevertheless they have been holding summits annually, and in December 2010, they invited South Africa to join the club, turning it into the BRICS.
In those days O'Neil was bullish about GDP growth in large emerging market economies, which would exceed that of the G7. He also said that over the next 10 years, the weight of the BRICs and especially China in world GDP would grow, raising important issues about the global economic impact of fiscal and monetary policy in the BRICs. In line with these prospects, he suggested that world policymaking forums should be re-organised and in particular, the G7 should be adjusted to incorporate BRIC.
Russia was invited to join G7 in 1997. The G-20 Summit was created, primarily as a response both to the financial crisis of 2007–2010 and to a growing recognition that key emerging countries were not adequately included in the core of global economic discussion and governance. After the 2008 debut summit in Washington, DC, G-20 leaders have been meeting annually ever since.
Yet the G-20 has failed "to create parity in these institutions between the advanced economies and the emerging and transition countries". China's demand for voting reforms at IMF had been rejected by the US Congress. It came as no surprise that China and Russia harboured desire change the current world order and "to build an alternative global platform".
In 2001 many shared O'Neil's optimism about BRIC playing a greater role on the international stage. About 42% of the world's population, and 30% of the world's territories, are in BRICS countries. It was expected that by 2015, the GDP of BRICS would reach 22% of the global total.
Yet earlier this year, O'Neil was concerned about the future of BRIC, saying Brazil and Russia's membership might expire by the end of this decade, if they failed to revive their flagging economies. He hoped that BRIC would not be reduced to IC - India and China. He didn't seem to take South Africa's membership seriously. O'Neil did see a future for the BRIC's development Bank, which would rival the IMF, and he expected the BRIC economies to overtake the U.S. in size this year. In his outlook the group would be as big as the G7 by 2035.

The author said India only wants a seat at the high table. This is not true. From the beginning of India's creation in 1947, there is a sinister component to it. What India seek is to emulate is to build an empire in the mold of the British. This is why India bought a second hand aircraft carrier in the first decade of its creation because they feel that this is what a maritime empire needs. As to its neighbors, India is probably the only country post WWII to have invaded and grabbed land from every single of its neighbors.

"many wondered whether the five parliaments could possibly find common ground". The ability of parliamentarians of all stripes to find common ground with co-parliamentarians, preferably in distant parts of the world and requiring long expenses-paid trips, has been exhaustively documented. Talk is cheap, except for the taxpayer picking up the tab.

In politics you can never say *never*, as the saying goes. But as IMF figs below illustrate trade & development is invariably going ahead in favor of BRICS. Central issue is whether they - as a disparate developing political group - have capacity and competence to give substance to their collective power or not.
Only time will tell, if BRICS will make a difference on the global political stage.
The (Canadian) stuff below on US generosity is political nonsense principally because it doesn't recognize post-1945 international relations was founded on American Exceptionalisam - which is currently on life-saving machine.

"The (Canadian) stuff below on US generosity is political nonsense principally because it doesn't recognize post-1945 international relations was founded on American Exceptionalisam - which is currently on life-saving machine." -- hari naidu

The reason you missed it -- is because that's what my whole comment was about -- 'American Exceptionalism' in the postwar political order! (and note my proper spelling of the term)

You seem to think that 'the American-led postwar order is on life-support' which could be true on a superficial level.

However, by applying a little advanced thinking to the matter, it illustrates how the U.S. is taking the lead by employing 'American Exceptionalism' -- but this time, applying it in a different way.

Instead of the 'top down' management style of the first 70 years of the American-led postwar era -- where the U.S. simply told the other countries exactly what to do and when to do it -- the U.S. is now promoting a more organic model where nations find their own place in the evolving world order, and the U.S. gives its assent.

Taking IMF's latest estimates, the GDP estimates in PPP terms shows a dramatic swing with China leading over U.S. with India in the third position. The numbers are as follows:
1. China $17.6 Trillion
2. U.S. $17.4 Trillion
3. India $7.3 Trillion

The BRICS is at $32.4 Trillion against G7 at $34 Trillion.

The numbers speak for themselves, but it's a pity that the motley group (BRICS) is a pale reminder of the fact that the power of individual countries are several notches higher than the power of the group in terms of the influence it can pose to the world order.

The numbers indeed speak for themselves, but they tell only one part of the story, and a relatively small part at that . To broaden the perspective, consider GDP per capita given China's 1.36B and India's 1.25B people.

Every such conversation must first acknowledge the United States as the leader of the creation of the successful postwar era that we know.

It was an era that saw the Marshall Plan, justice meted out at Nuremberg, the Berlin Airlift, an unprecedented global economic boom, the U.S. steering us through the Cold War to a successful conclusion, the dimming down of regional disputes -- and most important of all -- giving Germany, Japan and Italy important places at the table while generously assisting law and order (security) in those countries which allowed those economies to become all that they could and should be.

Agreed, it wasn't only the United States. Other powers participated in this historic endeavor, and again, it couldn't have been done without the goodwill that we encountered when dealing with our counterparts in postwar Germany, Japan and Italy. It could've gone so differently! (Let's not take them for granted either)

I like to think that because the Allied Powers treated the Axis Powers with respect after the war and with a view to creating a mutually successful world order, that the Axis Powers responded in kind. And that's why the whole operation was successful.

Yes, some nations chafed under the superpower at times. And there was the capitalist/communist competition for global dominance.

But considering all that happened up to 1946, it's a wonder that any of us are here and at least for 1 billion people on the Earth, life is generally good. And we're working on improving the lives of the other 6 billion.

Which brings me to my point.

The reluctance to evolve.

The United States was primarily responsible for the leadership of the postwar era, and it excelled in that role in every way, although seemingly heavy-handed at times. (To some)

Yet, even the U.S. must have known that one day that world order it led would begin to show its age, and that some amount of evolution must occur.

Failure to respond to a changing world, has brought about such organizations as the BRICS, the NDB, the SCO, the AIIB, MERCOSUR and recent initiatives between Russia and its neighbouring countries, and dramatically closer relations between Russia and China. And more.

Either the U.S. is reluctant to evolve the existing order, or it is deliberately prompting such responses to occur.

Is the postwar leader really biting its fingernails watching all of this with trepidation, or is the U.S. the deliberate enabler of geopolitical evolution?

A case could be made both ways.

If it is the case that: "Today’s world leaders appear to lack the statesmanship, the breadth of vision, and the generosity of spirit of those who created the post-1945 world order. By clinging stubbornly to the system they dominate and barring the door to new entrants, they have left those outside little choice." -- Shashi Tharoor

Then we are truly being 'led by events' instead of by the foresighted leadership we've been used to for the past 70 years, and the primary blame for that will land at the feet of the U.S. (mainly) at some point in the future. And such would be truly disappointing after decades of solid leadership by the U.S. and its close allies.

But if it is the case that this is a deliberate plan by (primarily) the U.S. to enable the nations of the world to seek mutual advantage/aid, to form such associations (knowing that some might fail, while others could succeed mightily) and to thereby allow political and economic power to organically form-up in those regions and be led by those regions, then it is likely the case that the U.S. has embraced such evolution and some commentators have missed that process, even as it hides in plain sight.

Let us hope that is the case. That kind of geopolitical confidence and the resulting economic evolution can only be seen as a good thing over the long term.

Allowing all of that organic evolution would be the best case of political darwinism yet seen on our world.

By allowing each nation to find its place and each bloc to find its point of equilibrium over time, instead of it all being directed by the U.S. in a 'top down' management style (which was fine in the postwar years, as we didn't have the luxury of time for equilibrium-finding!) we should arrive at a voluntary and balanced world order within a decade, one that the various participants have carefully worked out among themselves.

Rather than directing the whole geopolitical show as it did (out of our need for that role to be filled) over the past 70 years, the U.S. will have succeeded in raising itself one level above the hubris of competition between nations and is now moving towards being the arbitrator of the geopolitical world and of the global economic system, rather than a true competitor.

If that is true, it is the most advanced political thinking yet seen on our shared planet.

I enjoyed reading your excellent essay, Shashi. Thank you for posting it at ProSyn.

The fundamental question I think is not whether the BRICS should have a seat at the "high table" -- but whether they have any fresh and constructive ideas to bring to it with respect to global cooperation and governance.

Regardless of its leadership, it would be nice if a "new world order" offered some improvement over the old one.

Michael Public:
You are right here. I really do not know what I'd common between say India vs Brazil. In order to have close relationship between nations, there is need for people to people contact, business dealings banking, historical connection etc. boy, these contrives can not even talk in a common language and the distance is great.
So this business of "BRIC" will soon Peter out!